On August 26, 2025, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) found itself at the heart of a heated debate that has been simmering for months, if not years. As party leaders gathered for their annual summer meeting—this time split between Minneapolis and Washington—delegates and activists braced for a showdown over the party’s official stance on Israel, Gaza, and U.S. military aid. What unfolded was a telling snapshot of a party caught between its establishment core and a surging wave of younger, more progressive voices demanding change.
The drama centered around two competing resolutions. The first, introduced by DNC Chair Ken Martin and backed by all five vice chairs, reaffirmed traditional Democratic support for Israel and called for a two-state solution negotiated directly by Israelis and Palestinians. It also advocated for the secure and unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza and recognized the complexity of the conflict. The second, far more controversial, came from Allison Minnerly, a 26-year-old new DNC member from Florida. Her resolution called for a total arms embargo and the suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel—a move that would have marked a seismic shift in party policy and U.S. foreign relations.
As reported by The Forward, the DNC leadership opted to withdraw its own resolution, effectively sidestepping a direct confrontation with the party’s progressive base. Ken Martin addressed delegates at the close of the resolutions committee meeting in Minneapolis, explaining, “This is a moment that calls for shared dialogue. We have to find a path forward as a party, and we have to stay unified.” Martin’s words reflected a growing realization: the party could not afford to fracture over an issue that has become a litmus test for many Democratic voters.
The resolutions committee approved Martin’s motion and, in the same breath, rejected Minnerly’s bold proposal for an arms embargo and U.S. support for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. The rejection was hardly a surprise—party leadership had been maneuvering for weeks to prevent the arms embargo resolution from reaching the full 448-member DNC for a vote, as detailed by RootsAction. Many saw this as classic party politics: delay, dilute, and, if possible, deflect.
But if the leadership hoped to tamp down dissent, they were in for a rude awakening. The debate exposed just how deeply pro-Palestinian sentiment has taken root among Democratic voters, especially the young. A recent Quinnipiac survey found that only 12% of Democrats sympathize more with Israelis in the conflict, while a July Gallup poll showed just 8% of Democrats approved of Israel’s military action in Gaza. Even more striking, 65% of Democrats told an Economist/YouGov poll that they believed Israel was committing genocide against Palestinian civilians—a view echoed by numerous human rights organizations and, increasingly, by party activists.
Support for Minnerly’s resolution was loud and public. Sunjay Muralitharan, president of the College Democrats of America, posted on X that he was “proud to co-sponsor the DNC Resolution calling for an arms embargo and explicit recognition of a Palestinian State. Young Americans have made their voices clear. A modern Democratic Party must stand against global injustice.” Zayed Kadir, leader of the High School Democrats of America, chimed in as well: “Our party must stand against injustice—at home and abroad.”
Yet, the DNC’s top officers remained unmoved. As RootsAction described, Vice Chair Shasti Conrad offered a noncommittal response when pressed about her stance, saying she would “probably see how the committee votes and the discussion, and will make a real time decision.” Jane Kleeb, the most powerful vice chair, only noted that she had sponsored a different resolution on Gaza and hoped for “agreed-upon joint language.” In the end, the leadership’s counter-resolution, crafted with input from the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI), didn’t even lightly criticize Israel for its conduct in Gaza.
The DMFI, founded in 2019 to counter rising calls to distance the party from Israel, quickly declared victory. “In this critical moment, Democrats stood firm, rejected this dangerous effort, and sent a message that they remain united in our commitment to Israel’s security and our long-standing alliance,” said Brian Romick, DMFI’s president and CEO, in a press statement. Halie Soifer, chief executive of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, called it “an important day for the Democratic Party,” expressing confidence that the party would “continue to align with the views and values of the vast majority of Jewish Americans.”
But many within the party saw things differently. James Zogby, a longtime Palestinian-American DNC committee member, praised Martin’s decision to withdraw the resolution as a smart move to avoid a zero-sum outcome. Still, he regretted that the arms embargo motion, which had galvanized younger progressives, failed to pass. Sophia Dannenberg, a delegate from Washington, warned, “I do fear that we’re losing our future as the Democratic Party by not being courageous on this issue.”
The numbers tell a story of a party at a crossroads. In June, 56% of voters in the Democratic mayoral primary picked Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist and outspoken critic of Israel, as their nominee. Post-primary surveys showed that 78% agreed with his belief that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, and 79% supported restricting weapons to Israel. Meanwhile, 27 Senate Democrats—led by Senator Bernie Sanders—recently backed resolutions to block weapons transfers to Israel, a record level of support for such measures.
The stakes are high. As The New York Times recently reported, the Democratic Party is “hemorrhaging voters long before they even go to the polls,” with a four-year swing toward Republicans adding up to 4.5 million lost voters between 2020 and 2024. Many analysts and activists warn that the party’s leadership risks alienating its base, especially young and progressive voters, by clinging to positions increasingly out of step with grassroots sentiment.
In an effort to bridge the divide, Martin announced plans to create a task force comprised of Jewish and Palestinian-American stakeholders to draft a consensus resolution. Whether this will satisfy the party’s restless base remains to be seen. For now, the DNC’s decision to withdraw its own resolution and reject the arms embargo proposal has left both sides unsatisfied—establishment figures touting unity, progressives vowing to keep up the pressure, and all eyes on what comes next.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the Democratic Party can no longer avoid the hard questions about its identity and values. The battle over Israel and Gaza is more than a policy debate—it’s a test of the party’s future direction, unity, and moral compass.
